Querying a speed ticket - should I expect to receive proof of the radar reading?

[Gremlin]

So, how do you explain the case of Bryan McHerron who won in front of TWO JPs in the Rangiora District Court? See my post #26 for further info.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying from my experience, and friends, you better have more than "I didn't do it". And no, I don't care about a single case.

I had a lightbulb moment standing in front of a judge pleading for a work licence after breaking the law too much. Changed bikes, haven't had another ticket (touches wood), no time/money down the drain... amazing. I feel like an infomercial.

[Gadget1]

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying from my experience, and friends, you better have more than "I didn't do it". And no, I don't care about a single case.

I had a lightbulb moment standing in front of a judge pleading for a work licence after breaking the law too much. Changed bikes, haven't had another ticket (touches wood), no time/money down the drain... amazing. I feel like an infomercial.

Fair enough, but there's been other cases where courts have ruled in favour of motorists in the same circumstances so it's not just one case. The McHerron was significant due to the two JPs involved. Thanks for replying though.

Sold via infomercial, where can I buy your transcript of the court case?

[TheDemonLord]

Look I see where you are coming from and good onya BUT the problem you face is that you only think you were not going that fast. You know you were not actually looking at your speedo... So the judge sees a Police officer who states definitely that you were doing X and you who states 'I don't think I was going that fast but I didn't check"... um - not the strongest argument...

You will need a very good story or at least a much better story.

The situation you are in is not ideal but realistically its the reasonable option.

I see your point, but I must disagree - your argument should simply be:

I was not speeding - The officer has provided no objective proof, with no proof of the offence I request that the charge against me be dismissed.

(maybe add some additional talk about the innacuracy of human perception and why we use tools to measure things etc.)

[nodrog:Me]

You cunts are so fuckin retarded.

the proof of radar reading is on the ticket, as he recorded it, manually.

the radar and officer are certified.

You're a whinging little dick that needs a smack into reality.

This is the same as parents that think its normal to take a school to court over their precious kids being disciplined for being fuckwits.

[bogan]

That is the issue I have and the point of this thread. What evidence? Because officer plod said so? Do you even understand what innocent until proven guilty means?

Your actions (or lack thereof) are also evidence; why wait until now to question the proof; it was available for you at the roadside.

As far as I know radar readings/tickets are not timestamped and collated, which is what you seem to be demanding; ie, the courts have decided that for a traffic infringement (ie, not a criminal offense), an officers word constitutes proof of guilt unless otherwise proven.

[Maha]

You Got Caught
Pay The Fucking Fine
And Ride Another Day

God there's some twatling dribble in this thread.

You cunts are so fuckin retarded.

the proof of radar reading is on the ticket, as he recorded it, manually.

the radar and officer are certified.

You're a whinging little dick that needs a smack into reality.

This is the same as parents that think its normal to take a school to court over their precious kids being disciplined for being fuckwits.

AGREE! Refer to post above the above.

[Paul in NZ]

You cunts are so fuckin retarded.

the proof of radar reading is on the ticket, as he recorded it, manually.

the radar and officer are certified.

.

Yup ............................

[Erelyes]

That is the issue I have and the point of this thread. What evidence? Because officer plod said so? Do you even understand what innocent until proven guilty means?

Yes. And at this stage it's still an allegation, you're yet to be proven guilty. Like said, officer's word is not 'proof', it is 'evidence'.

So. Should you either pay it, or do nothing, that is 'proof' (as you basically admit liability). Obviously if you pay it, you get a defense vs any further proceedings.

However, should you choose a court hearing (denying liability) then you can let a judge decide guilt based on the evidence provided. Of course, you'd do well to provide your own evidence... as they tend to give reasonable weight to the evidence given by cops.

Me personally - I have a great issue with this:

If you have 'great' issue (rather than just issue) then you can either emigrate, secede, or write to your MP.

I don't see that an Officer's word should be given greater weight - if anything it is the Police making the positive claim (that an offence did occur) and so the onus is on the Police to provide objective evidence (of which an officer's word is not - it is Subjective) to support it.

Another person who doesn't seem to understand what having a society where cops must provide third-party evidence entails. Do you propose that a cop must also pull over another motorist and ask them to sign a statement that yes, indeed, the radar does say 102 and yes, indeed, this is a 90 zone?

[TheDemonLord]

If you have 'great' issue (rather than just issue) then you can either emigrate, secede, or write to your MP.

Without regards to the rest of the thread, I am talking a situation where the courts takes an officers word as evidence with no other proof submitted which is not inline with the principle of Haebes Corpus and IMO is a very dangeous and slippery slope

Another person who doesn't seem to understand what having a society where cops must provide third-party evidence entails. Do you propose that a cop must also pull over another motorist and ask them to sign a statement that yes, indeed, the radar does say 102 and yes, indeed, this is a 90 zone?

Radar Lock Time Stamp, combined with a GPS Timestamp - pretty easy, using technologies that already exist - that would back up what the Cop said.

[Scuba_Steve]

You cunts are so fuckin retarded.

the proof of radar reading is on the ticket, as he recorded it, manually.

& proof of the existence of lizard men is on teh interwebs, as someone recorded it there, manually

[Jin]

Nevermind deleted comment

[FJRider]

I got stopped for speeding awhile ago then a few weeks later the ticket arrived in the mail. I then went online and requested full disclosure of what they have.

Why did the officer not issue you a ticket when He / She stopped you ... ???

I have now received a copy of the infringement notice, brief notes made at the time by the officer, a certificate of accuracy for the radar and confirmation of training of the officer. What I really want is proof of the speed I was doing at the time rather than just accepting what the officer told me.

Highlighted IS the proof ... and it is policy for the offending motorist to be invited to View the locked readout speed on the radar unit.

Were you invited to view it ... ???? ... and DID you view it .. ?????

Do they keep logs of radar readings taken to substantiate tickets? If they do is there any reason they didnt include this in the documents?

The certificate of accuracy IS enough perceived/required proof ... to substantiate tickets issued in a court of law.

The cover states that this is what is held by the Police Infringement Bureau and my request has also been forwarded to the issuing officer to supply to me directly items of disclosure that are held in the district. Should I expect to receive from that district radar proof?

What would you expect ... a Christmas card ... ??

[nodrog:Me]

& proof of the existence of lizard men is on teh interwebs, as someone recorded it there, manually

[nodrog:Me]

Nevermind deleted comment

you're never going to win in court with that sort of defeatist attitude.

[nodrog:Me]

Are we up to the bit in the thread where the Lesbians turn up yet?